[WikiEN-l] Notability on the skfields

[Philip Sandifer]

On May 14, 2007, at 11:35 PM, Todd Allen wrote:

> But that aside, it should still be deleted. There's a good reason to
> require a significant amount of independent sourcing. First-party
> sources may be biased, promotional, inaccurate, incomplete,  
> technically
> correct but deliberately misleading, or any combination of the above.
> Good secondary sources check for those things, cross-check one  
> another,
> aren't interested in promoting the subject, and look for non-obvious
> details. When we've got quite a few reliable, secondary sources on
> something, we can be pretty sure we've got a good, complete picture of
> it. And that's how we build neutral, verifiable articles without using
> original research.

But the standard for inclusion of information is not multiple  
independent sources. It's a single reliable source. What is different  
about including this material on an overall list of ski fields in New  
Zealand and including it in its own article?

-Phil